This is an archive of past discussion threads on User talk:Pi.1415926535, from December 2024 (the end of Archive 22) to May 2025. Please don't modify it. If you wish to revive a discussion, please start a new section on my main talk page and link to the discussion here.
You nominated this entry for deletion. It was expanded and improved but you made no further comment. It was redirected as you suggested without any of its content being merged. Do you think this has been a good outcome? FloridaArmy (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits after the nomination did not change the underlying issue - that there is not significant coverage of the place, either as a geographic feature or a community, in reliable sources. The other contributor to the AfD, who commented after those edits, agreed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've moved it. And yes, I always make sure the Wikidata item is linked up (especially in this case given the name changes). I think I've updated all references to "Lafayette Street Terminal"; still haven't found any uses of that. I'm wondering if it was a straight-up Wikipediaism to avoid the admittedly awkward situation of two stations with the same name. Mackensen(talk)04:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, great edits to Amtrak Susquehanna River Bridge. I'm curious about the choice to remove certain things from the citations, like archive-url and access-date tags. Are these extraneous details deemed not worthy for a GA article? I'm fairly unfamiliar with the process, and generally stay closer to updating stubs and adding cites. Cheers, --Engineerchange (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Engineerchange, thanks for reaching out. These are both persnickety opinions of mine and not part of the GA criteria. For access dates, I am of the opinion they should only be used for sources that are liable to change – such as news sites or government web sites that may be updated over time – where the date the site was accessed matters to the reader. For sources that are not likely to ever change such as PDF documents, or scans of print materials where the original will never change, I find the access date to be extraneous if not outright misleading. Same goes for archived sources - once a human has checked the archived version, only the archive date is relevant, since the archived version will not have changed since then.
For archive urls, I am of the opinion they're only necessary if the source is dead, or liable to go dead, or if it's useful to preserve it at a point in time. For anything that's going to be live and stable long enough for it to be archived on archive.org (or already has been), I prefer to let the bot archive it if and when it goes dead. That reduces the amount of text in the citations. Some editors disagree with that, so I don't usually remove archive urls that are already in an article, but I do revert mass addition of archives to live sources. In this article, the only sources that I removed existing archive urls from were the two (dead) Baer citations that I updated to a live link. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. All good points here. Generally agree with all of them. Maybe I'm still suspicious that an archive may not be available down the road if I don't do it manually today? I truly don't understand the workflow of these archive bots. --Engineerchange (talk) 04:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pi.1415926535! First, thanks for the detailed response and feedback that you've given to me on Crystal Springs Dam. It's a lot clearer to me that there are some glaring issues that need to get fixed. I'll get to it as soon as I can. As for the Hetch Hetchy book, that would be great! My email is [redacted].
I have one question, though, and apologies in advance if it's a stupid one. You bring up that there are only four sources listed at the end of the article. I see that there are four sources, and that they have a bullet note next to them, but directly underneath there is a long list of sources, in smaller text, that link up to the inline citations. What's the difference between those two forms of citing?
The four references that are in bullet points were not done by me- those were done in 2009 by another editor. As such, I'm not entirely sure how I'm supposed to format references on an article. Could you perhaps point me to a sample article with good citation formatting or a guide that explains the process?
Thanks again for your help, and I hope you have a wonderful holiday season.
@3602kiva: I ended up sending you three chapters via a Dropbox link. Not all of that is directly about Crystal Springs, but I imagine it'll be useful background. Here's the citation information: {{cite book |title=Hetch Hetchy and its Dam Railroad |first=Ted |last=Wurm |publisher=Trans-Anglo Books |year=1990 |isbn=0-87046-093-5 |page=}}
All references should be inline - that is, they are directly next to the material they support in the text. That makes it clear to readers which source is supporting that material. Conversely, it's not clear what material the four bullet-point references at the end support. They should either be moved inline next to their corresponding material, or removed if no longer needed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Pisarro, Jr.: Thanks for uploading your images. In articles, photos should only be used when specifically relevant (see MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE). For the history section, we don't need more than one recent image of the station interior, especially since there's very little discussion of the interior in the prose. I chose the 2018 image because it shows the whole waiting room without the group of people standing. Since it's the history section of the article, having the most recent images is not a priority. (Ideally we would have one or two 19th or 20th century images as well.)
Please do also note some details about adding images:
Per MOS:IMAGESIZE, images should be default thumbnail size in articles rather than having their width hard-coded
The phrase 125th St. Harlem Metro-North Station is not the best for captions - the reader already knows what article they're on, so "the station" is fine. Note also that per WP:USSTATION, we do not capitalize "station" in most instances, including this one.
When you upload images to Commons, please add the most specific categories that are available. For your two photos, I replaced the very broad Category:Architecture with the more specific Category:Harlem–125th Street station.
Hey Pi how is it going? Hopefully well. I just wanted to ask a question areal quick. I first noticed in the summer of 2023 that every WMATA station has the word "station" in it? Like for example "Metro Center station" is a station..... when before it said just the name then the description Can I ask why? Thanks for your cooperation Gymrat16 (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it helpful? Iy already uses the word station above like for example "Metro Center station" is a station..... when previously it said "Metro Center is a station. Why use the word "station" so redundantly when that word is already in the definition only 3 lines away? Gymrat16 (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rocketwidget: I'm inclined to treat these as descriptive names rather than official names, given that there are three different names, and that two of them describe the whole corridor rather than specifically the Lawrence segment. I think it's better to err on the side of not including/bolding the names until it becomes clear what the official name will be. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So I took the commuter to/from Monseratt recently (and have also noticed this taking the Silver Line), but I've noticed that the former commuter rail platform at Bellingham Square station is still partially intact; it's visible from the Silver Line's eastbound platform and passing Newburyport/Rockport Line trains. However, because the cited page says it was demolished entirely, the station page says this as well. Would it be more accurate to say the platform was partially removed and filled in? Wanted your thoughts before making the edits.
(As an aside, the exit numbers for the Yankee Division Highway east of the Canton Interchange to the Braintree Split have been removed from the page as they are no longer Route 128's exit numbers. This is despite Yankee Division Highway redirecting to Route 128's article; I have been considering restoring the exit numbers, but wanted to get your opinion on it before opening a talk page discussion on the matter (as they were removed without one, and much of the article still references Route 128's historic extensions to Braintree and to Hull).
That's fair on sources. I asked at first because I noticed the remains of the platform (including an intact sign) last time I was at Bellingham Square station and had considered taking a photo of it to add to the article, but had felt it seemed contradictory to the sentence in the article itself. (I'm also not sure where a good spot to stage a photo is, and my only camera is the one on my Galaxy Z Flip; my cousin owns a professional camera but I don't know if he would let me borrow it or come with me to snap a photo). Pokemonred200 (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we need all or none of the opening and closure year categories, seeing as how I found a citation for the 1939 closure in under five minutes. Which do you prefer? Cards8466418:06, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cards84664: Yes, there should be categories for all (intended-to-be-permanent) openings and closures. (I don't usually add categories for closures intended to be temporary, such as during reconstruction.) Thanks for doing the research! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A 2009 web article from The Philadelphia Inquirer claiming the station was open in WWII, without giving dates, directly contradicts their own reporting from 1952 stating that the station was not open since 1939. Based on that, the purported WWII re-opening is most likely a hoax. Cards8466418:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to pick up your GA nomination for this article, but due to the length (I count almost 10,000 words) and density of citations it could take me anywhere from two weeks to a full month to complete a review. I do appreciate that you need to account for a huge number of predecessor companies, almost all of which don't have articles, and that will inevitably drive up the length. I think I'm probably one of the only people that has the subject matter knowledge to review this effectively (the somewhat intimidating note with the nomination doesn't help!), and it's been waiting since November, so I figured I'd offer even if I can't complete a review in the normal timeframe. Let me know if that works for you and if so I can start the review. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings: Thanks for being willing to take this on! That timeframe is totally fine; I wouldn't expect anyone to be able to complete a full review of it in a week. I do intend to move some of the more complex predecessors (Dudley, Southbridge, Blackstone Valley) to separate articles eventually, but I'll need to get Telegram archives access to do that properly. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey folks! A couple months ago, I had swapped out the 2019 infobox image for the Arlington MBTA station page for the one shown below, but I haven't been satisfied with how the framing on that image came out. I always like to ensure that every vertical edge shown in this image is perfectly straight/even, especially towards the sides of the image. I tried swapping out that image for another one I took early last month, but although I framed it better, it did not appear as good as this one. Is it possible any of you could help address this?
An outbound train at Arlington station in February 2025
"I always like to ensure that every vertical edge shown in this image is perfectly straight/even, especially towards the sides of the image."
Because of how perspective works, this is usually impossible, especially with wider perspectives, unless:
You are pointing your camera perfectly parallel against the ground, or:
You are using a very long lens and taking a very zoomed-in image from very far away
Try photographing a brick wall from different angles - in almost all cases the lines at the left or right will diverge or converge. There will be exactly one angle where you can get all the vertical lines parallel. Otherwise, the lines at the left and right of the image will be at an angle. This is fine and completely expected. If you try to use that one angle that gets all the lines vertical, then you will be very limited in how you can compose, and usually sacrifice other, much more important elements of photographic composition.
Here is an example photo where the lines at the left and right are at an angle, since this shot is taken looking up, rather than perfectly parallel with the ground:
There's nothing wrong with the left and right lines being at an angle. In these scenarios, you should level the image such that the lines in the dead center of the image are vertical. If there is no line in the center to use as a reference, try to get the left and right lines converging or diverging symmetrically. 4300streetcar (talk) 00:56, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Other undiscussed official name station moves
Hi Pi, thanks for responding to my inquiry on Talk:Fall River station and reverting my move on Palo Alto station. It's taken me way longer than I should've to come to terms with the naming conventions. I was under the misguided impression that the official names were the ones that were supposed to be used, and not the common names in the cases they differ. Going forth, I'll make sure to use RMs whenever I am a bit unsure on which is the common name. However, this has also made me introspect over other previous undiscussed moves of this nature I performed that were never properly challenged. Given that one of your main areas of focus is California, I thought you could be a great secondary opinion on these. Please let me know if any of these moves were a mistake, and I'll help rectify them in any way I can. Thank you.
@OrdinaryScarlett: In general, I would err on the side of keeping the common name. For all the California stations you listed here, except maybe Salinas, the official name doesn't seem to be widely used. I'd recommend moving those back and filing RMs, but I don't feel strongly about any of them. "Charlotte Gateway Station" seems to be widely used and conveniently forms a natural disambiguation, so that one should stay. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you! I'll work on moving back the ones you suggested. I'll make sure to make a note on which I've moved back and fixed the links to as I go through them. OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: Done for Solana Beach, Castroville, and Hercules, and kept Salinas and Gateway Station with their new titles. Orange will probably need a WP:RM/TR to move back to its old title. By the way, I didn't get to Richmond station (California) before this talk page discussion, would you say that its current title is also its common name? OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I partially undid your edit, restoring the section about the Yellow Line's change of route from the original plan prior to opening. I included reasoning in the edit summary. It is relevant information. Specifically, the earlier part about Yellow Line plan to Franconia would not make sense after removing information of the last-minute swap. Fastfoodfanatic (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just point out that for myself, on a 24" high resolution monitor, even in wide mode, right aligned images fit under the infobox. I think we're bending over a little too much to appease the very small minority of users who A) aren't using a mobile device, where granted, left/right is irrelevant and B) have overridden the default Wikipedia settings to force an old skin, small font, or a wide viewport. Anyways, just something to consider. RickyCourtney (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RickyCourtney: At 1920x1080 (a fairly typical resolution), the image gets pushed below the infobox on wide mode. I don't see a compelling reason to move the image to the right, since it doesn't interfere with section headers or bullets. There's no particular reason that images need to be right-aligned; the only justification I've seen is a misreading of accessibility guides. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cards84664: I'm not seeing the issue on any of those articles on Firefox (mobile and desktop) or Chrome (desktop). Does the issue persist even when you're logged out/in an incognito tab? If not, it's probably something with your preferences or other customization. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's slightly better when I use the modern skin instead of 2010, but the box on Hammond-Whiting still seems wider than usual, the adjacent stations are not being compressed like usual. It's only certain images too. Cards8466414:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The wider version (340px) is what I see both logged in (Monobook) and logged out. It's definitely better, especially with the larger default text size. There's no reason to narrow it to 300px for everyone. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sumone10154: PD-EdictGov is generally for the text of laws and of symbols defined therein; it is not applicable to other government works. (I can't fault you for not knowing that, as the old logo also had that incorrect license.) Fortunately, most Massachusetts government works are public domain. I've uploaded an svg version of the logo (preferable to raster images) with a correct license and added it to the article. Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Assistance with Wikipedia Page Edits
Hi, I am writing on behalf of Miguel Rosales, an architect with a Wikipedia page that currently has several notes. On December 2, 2015, and March 8, 2020, you made edits to his page. We are wondering if you would be willing to assist us in making some edits to remove these notes and warnings.
According to Wikipedia's guidelines on paid contributions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure), it is permissible to compensate contributors for their work. We are very interested in discussing the possibility of collaborating with you to improve the page.
Thank you for your feedback and for expressing your concerns regarding paid editing. My intention is solely to improve the quality and neutrality of the article, following all guidelines for transparency and verifiability. If you have suggestions on how the article can be enhanced further, I’d greatly appreciate your input. CaroBran (talk) 02:27, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
